Nuclear power is clean and safe

Thanks for the update, that extension had not yet rippled through to the other sources.

I suspect this event will cause some older U.S. plants to not get, or maybe not even apply for, license extensions.

 

Would you please show us your sources?

My sources are as follows;
Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In February 2011, Japanese regulators granted an extension of ten years for the continued operation of the reactor."

http://www.meti.go.jp/press/20110207001/20110207001.pdf
(Japanese only)
"本申請は、福島第一原子力発電所１号炉が平成２３年３月２６日に運転開始後４０年を経過することから、実用炉規則第１１条の２の規定に基づき、福島第一原子力発電所１号炉に係る高経年化技術評価（運転開始から３０年以上経過した炉が対象）が実施され、その結果追加すべき保全策（現行の保守管理に追加すべき項目）が抽出されたことから、これを実用炉規則第１１条の２の規定に基づく長期保守管理方針（運転開始後３０年または４０年経過した後１０年間に実施すべき保守管理に関する方針）として保安規定の変更認可申請がなされた
ものです。"

Ken@Japan

 

36 hours ago, that very same page read:
"Construction of unit 1 commenced in July 1967, commercial electrical production began March 26, 1971, and it was scheduled for shutdown on March 26, 2011."

A few hours later, the date changed to just March 2011, consistent with this source. At that time, the Wikipedia page was changing rapidly.

 

The source page was edited last on Nov 24th, 2005. It's very old one.

My source of JP government announcement was done on Feb 7th, 2011.

Ken@Japan

 

Thanls for being so patient with us Ken. The scale of this disaster goes far beyond the future of a few power plants.

If you have any suggestions about aid contributions to Japan, besides the usual Red Cross. please share them with your friends at PriusChat.

 

Thank you tochatihu.

In Japan, they start collecting relief donations through Red Cross, TV stations and others.

I am not aware about the contributions in other countries.
Please consult local Red Cross or others in each country.

Thank you,
Ken@Japan

 

Roughly enough uranium to power everything for a century or so, if we use breeding.

In contrast the world has an enormous supply of recoverable thorium, enough to meet all energy needs for thousands of years. And it's much difficult to weaponize than are uranium-based fuel cycles.

 

With all due respect, I do not believe armchair quarterbacking on this topic is really warranted at this time, especially on PriusChat. There are too much speculations on what is going on with the reactors, and it takes time to get them under control after such a tremendous tragedy.

It would be better to use this forum to support the rescue and recovery efforts in Japan, by posting links to different (and verified) organizations where one can contribute financially and via volunteering to support Japan in their time of need. I have contacted three different Japanese-oriented organizations in my area to see if they need help.

 

Of course our immediate concern is to aid the victims and the recovery of society.

Sadly, people will draw incorrect lessons from this. When an airplane crashes we don't give up flying: we figure out what went wrong and fix it.

By the end of this Century humanity's total power requirement will be about 10 TeraWatts. The world's options include (in round numbers): cover 100,000 square km with Solar cells and build 3 million wind turbines and a million km of transmission lines to connect them all; build 1000 nuclear plants; build 100 Solar power plants in Earth orbit. Freezing in the dark and mass suicide are options that will not be chosen.

 

The problem is the extreme NIMBY crowd. We can't build any power generation facilities anywhere where they might be remotely useful - which basically leaves us with those last two (or one, if they are considered The Final Option) which might be 'forced' on us by economics. 'Sure, you can have power, but it will cost $35 a kilowatt hour' or 'Sure, you can have natural gas - but your monthly bill to heat an average sized home will be $1000'. It's not a choice if you have no ability to actually choose any of the other options.

Modern nuclear power generation technologies are safer and cleaner - we just need to start using them.

 

Safer and cleaner than they used to be, but cleaner and safer than alternatives? Absolutely not.

You can put solar power on my roof anytime, or a wind turbine in the back yard, or generators in the local river or at the beach, but NOT a nuclear reactor. What you call NIMBYism, most people would call common sense. The only clean and safe nuclear reactor is called the Sun.

 

it's always the unexpected natural disaster or unplanned for terrorist attack that makes you think twice about these things. while we plan for next year, al kada is infiltrating now and planning for 2020.

 

The Sun isn't clean and safe, it's just not in your back yard. Given the same distance, any existing fission plant would be completely safe.

Tom

 

I hope this guy is exaggerating.
Radiation Threat for Tokyo? | Tokyo Notes

"The fuel used in the Japanese nuclear reactor where an explosion occurred today is more volatile and toxic than the fuel used in the other reactors there, a Japanese nuclear expert warned.
At a press conference in Tokyo, Masashi Goto, who worked for Toshiba as a reactor researcher and designer, said the mixed oxide ([ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel"]MOX[/ame]) fuel used in unit 3 of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant contains plutonium, which is much more toxic than the fuel used in the other reactors.
MOX fuel is a mixture of uranium and plutonium reprocessed from spent uranium, and is sometimes involved in the disposal of weapons-grade plutonium.
Goto added that the MOX also has a lower melting point than the other fuels. The Fukushima facility began using MOX fuel last September, becoming the third plant in Japan to do so."
http://www.pakcolours.com/plutonium-threat-at-japan-reactor-expert-warns/

 

Alright, let me rephrase my earlier statement: We already have all the nuclear power we need, and the reactor is located at a safe distance. Like, 150,000,000 km away. Better?

 

VS a coal plant that does more damage year it runs vs the entire life and violent death of this plant.

 

Yes, they are ruined. With the age and damage it makes sense for a complete re-do with modern technologies.

 

Those plants were nearing the end of their life cycle anyway. There is no loss in terms of capital investment, I don't think.

 

Why Japan relies on nuclear power

Why Japan relies on nuclear power - CNN.com

 

I believe I heard today on NPR that there are a number of European countries, Germany in particular, that plan to phase out nuclear power.